Liberalism is a term employed in a dizzying variety of ways across the humanities and social sciences. This essay seeks to reframe how the liberal tradition is understood. I start by delineating different types of response – prescriptive, comprehensive, explanatory – that are frequently conflated in answering the question “what is liberalism?” I then discuss assorted methodological strategies employed in the existing literature: after rejecting “stipulative” and “canonical” approaches, I outline a contextualist alternative. On this (comprehensive) account, liberalism is best characterised as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognised as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, over time. In the remainder of the article I present an historical analysis of shifts in the meaning of liberalism in Anglo-American political thought between 1850 and 1950, focusing in particular on how John Locke came to be seen as a liberal. I also explore the emergence of the category of "liberal democracy". I argue that the scope of the liberal tradition was massively expanded during the middle decades of the twentieth century, such that it came to be seen by many as the constitutive ideology of the West. This capacious (and deeply confusing) understanding of liberalism was produced by a conjunction of the ideological wars fought against “totalitarianism” and assorted developments in the social sciences. Today we both inherit and inhabit it.

"Representations", N. 129, Winter 2015.

The essay analyzes the project of maintaining the body of V. I. Lenin in the Mausoleum in Moscow for the past ninety years, focusing on the unique biological science that developed around this project, and the unexpected political role this body has performed.

This article demonstrates historically and statistically that conversionary Protestants (CPs) heavily influenced the rise and spread of stable democracy around the world. It argues that CPs were a crucial catalyst initiating the development and spread of religious liberty, mass education, mass printing, newspapers, voluntary organizations, and colonial reforms, thereby creating the conditions that made stable democracy more likely. Statistically, the historic prevalence of Protestant missionaries explains about half the variation in democracy in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania and removes the impact of most variables that dominate current statistical research about democracy. The association between Protestant missions and democracy is consistent in different continents and subsamples, and it is robust to more than 50 controls and to instrumental variable analyses.

Consideramos importante el tema de la participación ciudadana en los procesos de políticas públicas porque constituye un elemento fundamental y condición de posibilidad para la gobernanza democrática, y puede llegar a constituir un mecanismo para el empoderamiento social. Los cada vez más abundantes trabajos sobre la gobernanza definen a ésta como un proceso de dirección de la sociedad en el que intervienen coordinadamente el gobierno, el sector productivo y también la ciudadanía. Para que sea posible esta clase de gobernanza democrática, debe existir una sociedad civil que se integre activamente en el proceso y asuma su implicación en la esfera pública y los asuntos colectivos como un ejercicio de construcción de ciudadanía.
En este ensayo revisaremos diferentes aportes teóricos en torno a la participación ciudadana, su vinculación con las políticas públicas y con la gobernanza. Luego analizaremos los riesgos y oportunidades implicados en la institucionalización de la participación, en particular a través de la figura de los consejos ciudadanos. En el último apartado presentamos una reflexión sobre los factores que restringen o amplían el alcance de la intervención ciudadana en las políticas públicas.

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.
              The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
          The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protesters. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries(some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
            This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

In many of the established democracies of Europe and North America, populist alternatives to democratic governance are gaining popularity and political power. In attempting to make sense of these developments, I argue, unlike many, that the rise of populism is not simply a passing response to fluctuating circumstances such as economic recession or increased immigration and thus a momentary retreat in the progress toward ever greater democratization.  Instead I suggest current developments reflect an underlying structural weakness inherent in democratic governance, one that makes democracies always susceptible to the siren call of right wing populism.  The weakness is the relative inability of the citizens of the modern, multicultural democracies to meet the demands the polity imposes upon them. Drawing on a wide range of research in political science and psychology, I argue that citizens typically do not have the cognitive or emotional capacities required.  Thus they are typically left to navigate in political reality that is ill understood and frightening.  Populism offers an alternative view of politics and society which is more readily understood and more emotionally satisfying.  In this context, I suggest that as practices in countries such as the United States become increasingly democratic, this structural weakness is more clearly exposed and consequential, and the vulnerability of democratic governance to populism becomes greater. The conclusion is that democracy is likely to devour itself. In the hope that it may not, I briefly consider the kinds of institutional changes that are necessary to facilitate the development of the citizenry democracy requires.

With the deadly ISIS advance, the sudden rousing of Shia militias and the threat of Kurdish secession, Iraq faces a host of deep-seated and intractable problems. Together, these events raise a number of serious questions, not just for Iraq and its future but also for the broader
Middle East, the United States and its Coalition partners and the international community. While these challenges and questions will drive much academic debate, political analysis and media discussion in the months and years ahead, they are not the central purpose of this chapter. While there is always a risk in commenting on unfolding events, including the potential to overstate their significance and likely long-term impact, it is difficult to ignore the significance of the deadly ISIS advance and all that has happened since. This chapter argues that key to understanding these events is coming to terms with the three varied and complex legacies of the 2003 Iraq War. The first central legacy of the Iraq War is the ongoing consequences of several critical mistakes made by the US-led Coalition before, during and immediately after the 2003 intervention. The second legacy addressed here is the fact that the 2003 war shattered – perhaps irreversibly - Iraqis fragile cultural mosaic and its rich and complex history of overlapping and intersecting communities, ideologies and narratives. The third and final legacy of the 2003 Iraq War detailed in this chapter is its significant regional and global consequences – from spiralling sectarianism across the Middle East to a profound challenge to America’s status as the last remaining superpower and its use of military power for ‘humanitarian’ ends. The argument here is that these three important legacies set in train a sequence of events that have served as the collective catalyst for the expansion of the ‘Islamic State’ from mid-2014.

This article offers a fresh critique of the work of political scientists and historians who have propagated the Eurocentric history of democracy. The paper argues that such work can be dissected and critiqued along several key lines: their reliance on a distinctly patriarchal discourse riddled with prejudices; the assertion that one can understand the history of democracy via the etymology of the word itself; and the deeply Eurocentric
roots of the study of democracy’s past embedded in the canon of Western political thought. The paper concludes by calling on contemporary political scientists and political historians concerned with the history of  democracy to be careful in re-iterating this deeply flawed history of democracy and to instead work towards a history of democracy that retrieves the silenced histories and the forgotten democratic moments that lay behind the roar of Western power.

In this paper we argue that the use of the communicative theory of Jürgen Habermas in planning theory is problematic because it hampers an understanding of how power shapes planning. We posit an alternative approach based on the power analytics of Michel Foucault which focuses on ‘what is actually done’, as opposed to Habermas’s focus on ‘what should be done’. We discuss how the Foucauldian stance problematises planning, asking difficult questions about the treatment of legitimacy, rationality, knowledge and spatiality. We conclude that Foucault offers a type of analytic planning theory which offers better prospects than does Habermas for those interested in understanding and bringing about democratic social change through planning.

This article suggests that although there is not much of an explicitly defined anthropology of populism, anthropologists have nevertheless been working for many years on the things we talk about when we talk about populism. Anthropologists should thus be exceptionally well situated to divert the debate on populism in creative ways. In particular, I argue that the term populism registers an intensified insistence of collective forces that are no longer adequately organized by formerly hegemonic social forms: a mattering-forth of the collective flesh. The article also shows why populism is such an awkward topic for anthropologists. In part, this discomfort has to do with a tension between anthropologists' effectively populist commitments to the common sense of common people at a time when that common sense can often look ugly. In part, it has to do with how the populist challenge to liberalism both aligns populist politics with anthropological critiques of liberal norms and puts pressure on anthropology's continued dependence on liberal categories for its own relevance to broader public debates. 45 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2019.48:45-60. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by University of Chicago Libraries on 11/16/19. For personal use only.

Power is present in each individual and in every relationship.  It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force (Holmes, Hughes & Julian, 2007).

In society governments, organisations and an elite class of people make decisions that affect the lives of a large mass of other people.  A significant amount of research shows these decisions are often made to serve their own economic interests and values of which includes the means of production and property ownership (Holmes et al, 2007; Walters & Crook, 1995; Haralambos & Holborn, 1990; McGregor, 2000).

These decisions cause inequality in society and resentment from people who are excluded from the decision making process.  The unequalness of this decision-making and power allocation enables the fortunate to enforce their will on the less fortunate (Graetz, 2001, Walters & Crook, 1995).

This essay discusses power from two sociological views; the Conflict perspective, predominately from Karl Marx and the Elite theory perspective.  These theories show that power is distributed unequally in society where governments, a ruling class, media and business elites hold the majority of power over others.

The Legacy of Iraq critically reflects on the abject failure of the 2003 intervention to turn Iraq into a liberal democracy, underpinned by free-market capitalism, its citizens free to live in peace and prosperity. It argues that mistakes made by the coalition and the Iraqi political elite set a sequence of events in motion that have had devastating consequences for Iraq, the Middle East and for the rest of the world.

Today, as the nation faces perhaps its greatest challenge in the wake of the devastating advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and another US-led coalition undertakes renewed military action in Iraq, understanding the complex and difficult legacies of the 2003 war could not be more urgent. Ignoring the legacies of the Iraq war and denying their connection to contemporary events could means that vital lessons are ignored and the same mistakes made again.

Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1952) fue un intelectual austro-norteamericano que trabajó como profesor en la universidad de Harvard, en los Estados Unidos.
El paper retoma su más célebre libro “Capitalismo, Socialismo y Democracia”. Una clara defensa del sistema democrático liberal de los Estados Unidos, y una crítica al modelo político socialista.
Se analiza los últimos tres capítulos del libro, que son los apartados más citados y donde se desprende el núcleo de la teoría presentada por el autor.

During the final quarter of the twentieth century, the democratic peace thesis - the idea that democracies do not fight one another - moved to the centre of scholarly and political debate throughout the Western world. Much of this work traces its origins to the European Enlightenment, and especially on Immanuel Kant. However, this historical narrative misses much of the subsequent discourse about democracy and war. In this essay I focus on some prominent, though now largely forgotten, strands of political thinking in the United States and Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In particular, I dissect fin de siècle debates about democracy, empire, race, and interstate conflict. Section I delineates four popular visions of peace that circulated during the nineteenth century: structural-liberal, radical-liberal, socialist, and republican. Section II introduces what I call the ‘democratic war thesis’ and the ‘democratic empire thesis.’ The former identified the linkages between democratic political structures and inter-state conflict, the latter suggested that vast empires could co-operatively govern the world and abolish war.  Section III anatomises the racial peace thesis, which was propounded by a range of prominent figures,  including Andrew Carnegie, Cecil Rhodes and H. G. Wells. They argued, from different points on the political spectrum, that the 'Anglo-Saxon race' held the key to perpetual peace.

Megaproject Planning and Management: Essential Readings contains the seminal articles from the growing body of research on megaproject planning and management along with an original introduction by the editor, Bent Flyvbjerg. The leading and most cited authority in the field, Flyvbjerg has used crowdsourcing and 25 years of experience to cherry-pick from several hundred articles and books the writings that define the field. This volume will be an indispensable source for those wishing to speak with authority about how megaprojects are prepared, delivered, and fought over. The target audience is students, academics, practitioners, and media pundits alike, as well as communities affected by megaprojects.

DEMOKRASİ ve SİVİL TOPLUM ÖRGÜTLERİNİN ENGELLERİ: PATRONAJ VE NEPOTİZM * Vehbi Bayhan Öz Bu makale, Türkiye gibi Doğu toplumlarında, demokrasi ve sivil toplum örgütlerinin gelişmesini engelleyen, patronaj ve nepotizmi vurgulamaktadır. Bunun sonucu olarak, bu tür toplumlardaki mevcut sivil toplum örgütleri, modern demokratik toplumlardaki gibi işlev görmemektedir. Doğu toplumlarındaki sivil toplum örgütlerine dikkatli bir bakış, diğerlerine şans tanımayan "biz" tabanlı, iktidara gelmek için can atan siyasal ve monist bir yapıyı sergilemektedir. Bu, toplumlardaki sosyalleşmenin tipi ve seviyesi ile direkt olarak ilgilidir. Anahtar Sözcükler Abstract

At the same time that case studies are widely used and have produced canonical texts, it may be observed that the case study as a methodology is generally held in low regard, or is simply ignored, within the academy. For example, only 2 of the 30 top-ranked U.S. graduate programs in political science require a dedicated graduate course in case study or qualitative methods, and a full third of these programs do not even offer such a course. In contrast, all of the top 30 programs offer courses in quantitative methods and almost all of them require training in such methods, often several courses. In identifying this paradox of the case study’s wide use and low regard, Gerring rightly remarks that the case study survives in a “curious methodological limbo,” and that the reason is that the method is poorly understood. In what follows, we will try to resolve Gerring’s paradox and help case study research gain wider use and acceptance.

A contradiction lies at the very centre of the neoliberal project. On a theoretical level, neoliberalism promises to bring about a purer form of democracy, unsullied by the tyranny of the state. Indeed, this claim serves as the moral lodestar for neoliberal ideology – the banner under which
it justifies radical market deregulation. But, in practice, it becomes clear that the opposite is true: that neoliberalism tends to undermine democracy and political freedom.

In establishing an anarchic framework for understanding public space as a vision for radical democracy, this article proceeds as a theoretical inquiry into how an agonistic public space might become the basis of emancipation. Public space is presented as an opportunity to move beyond the technocratic elitism that often characterizes both civil societies and the neoliberal approach to development, and is further recognized as the battlefield on which the conflicting interests of the world's rich and poor are set. Contributing to the growing recognition that geographies of resistance are relational, where the “global” and the “local” are understood as co-constitutive, a radical democratic ideal grounded in material public space is presented as paramount to repealing archic power in general, and neoliberalism’s exclusionary logic in particular.

The chapter examines the democratic mechanisms of governance evident in the various civilizations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Iraq). The chapter draws on examples from extant literature such as the earliest myths and legends, through the foundation of the world's first city states and onto the expansion of grand empires such as the Babylonians and Assyrians. This analysis reveals that collective models of governance and a lively political culture existed across the broader region at various junctures. While it would be unwise here to over-state the extent of these political developments or their influence, they nonetheless indicate just how long the will towards democracy has been alive in Iraq.

Askerler; ordu-millet geleneğiyle şekillenen Türk devlet sistemi içerisinde her dönemde devletin belirleyici unsurlarından olmuştur. Askerlerin devletin karar alma mekanizması içerisindeki bu ağırlığının temel nedeni, işgal altındaki Anadolu topraklarını işgalden kurtararak bağımsız ve çağdaş bir devlet yaratan kadroların büyük çoğunluğunun asker kökenli olmasıdır. Ancak Anadolu Devrimi’ni yapanların kafasında hiçbir zaman bir militarist diktatörlük kurma fikri yer almamıştır. Bu nedenle Kurtuluş Savaşı bile, milletin temsilcilerinden oluşan TBMM tarafından yürütülmüş, savaş ortamında alınan kararlar da dahi milli irade aranmıştır. Kurtuluş Savaşı sonrasında da Cumhuriyet ilan edilerek çok partili siyasi hayata geçilmesi konusunda girişimler gerçekleşmiştir. Türkiye’nin çok partili siyasi hayata geçişiyle birlikte devlet geleneği içerisinde ağırlığı olan askerler; aslında Cumhuriyeti kuranların üniformayla siyaseti ayırma konusunda gösterdikleri büyük hassasiyete rağmen; kendilerine iç tehditlere karşı Cumhuriyet’i korumak gibi bir vazife edinmiş ve milletin kendi iradesiyle seçtiği kadroları demokratik olmayan yöntemlerle siyasetin dışına itmiştir. Bunun ilk örneği 27 Mayıs 1960’ta gerçekleşen askeri darbeyken Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri’nin emir-komuta zinciri içerisinde gerçekleştirdiği ilk darbe, 12 Mart 1971 Muhtırası olmuştur. Cumhurbaşkanı Sunay’a kuvvet komutanlarının imzaladığı bildirinin iletilmesi ve radyoda okunması sonrasında Demirel hükümeti istifa etmiş ve demokrasi tamamen olmasa da kısmen askıya alınmıştır. Bu dönemde CHP milletvekili Nihat Erim’in başında bulunduğu bir teknokrat hükümeti kurulmuştur. Darbenin emir-komuta zinciri içersinde gerçekleşmesi bakımından 12 Eylül’e örnek olduğu ifade edilebilir. Diğer taraftan askerlerin doğrudan kurumları ele geçirmek yerine, hükümeti istifa ettirip bir teknokrat hükümeti kurdurması yönünden de 28 Şubat müdahalesine örnek teşkil ettiği de ifade edilebilir. Bu bildiride 12 Mart Muhtırası’yla Türk demokrasisine indirilen asker darbesi anlatılmaktadır

This special issue asks, “Do classics exist in megaproject management?” We identify three types of classics: conventional, Kuhnian, and citation classics. We find that the answer to our question depends on the definition of “classic” employed. First, “citation classics” do exist in megaproject management, and they perform remarkably well when compared to the rest of the management literature. A preliminary Top Ten of citation classics is presented. Second, there is no indication that “conventional classics” exist in megaproject management, i.e., texts recognized as definitive by a majority of experts. Third, there is also no consensus as to whether “Kuhnian classics" exist, i.e., texts with paradigmatic clout. The importance of classics seems to be accepted, however, just as work to develop, discuss, and consolidate classics is seen as essential by megaproject scholars. A set of guidelines is presented for developing classics in megaproject management research.

Dalam makalah ini, penulis akan membahas tentang sejarah perkembangan demokrasi di dunia termasuk Indonesia. Selain itu juga akan membahas sistem demokrasi yang dianut oleh beberapa negara di dunia. Dan tentunya membahas tentang sistem demokrasi yang dianut oleh negara Indonesia, yaitu Demokrasi Pancasila.

Quedan rigurosamente prohibidas, sin la autorización escrita de los titulares del «Copyright», bajo las sanciones establecidas en las leyes, la reproducción total o parcial de esta obra por cualquier medio o procedimiento, comprendidos la reprografía y el tratamiento informático, y la distribución de ejemplares de ella mediante alquiler o préstamo públicos. © José Luis Martí © MARCIAL PONS EDICIONES JURÍDICAS Y SOCIALES, S. A. San Sotero, 6 -28037 MADRID ☎ (91) 304 33 03 ISBN: 84-Depósito legal: M. 2006

This paper examines the short-lived rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the Arab Spring and argues that the Muslim Brotherhood had abandoned Islamist values without embracing democratic ideals. It identifies a pathway to reform for the Brotherhood  if it is serious about democratization. The paper insists that the failure of democracy in Egypt is not a judgement on the compatibility of Islam and democracy.

This paper sets out an ambitious critique of contemporary political scientists, political historians and others concerned with the history of democracy. It argues that overwhelmingly the history of democracy relies on an overtly Eurocentric narrative that emphasizes the keystone moments of Western civilization. According to this narrative, democracy has a clear trajectory that can be traced from ancient experiments with participatory government in Greece and to a lesser extent in Rome, through the development of the British parliament, the American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution, and then finally onto the triumphant march of the liberal model of democracy across the globe over the last 200 years, particularly under Western tutelage. Histories of democracy that focus exclusively on these events not only privilege Europe and its successful colonies, but also miss the broader human story of the struggle for and achievement of democracy.

This presents us with a distinct challenge. For those whose heritage does not include a direct link to Greek assemblies, the American Congress or the French Revolution, the 'standard history of democracy' provides a distant and exclusive narrative, which limits one's ability to embrace democracy. This paper concludes by noting that, as democracy spreads out across the world today, political scientists not only need to break down the intellectual orthodoxy that democracy has exclusively Western roots, but also to embrace a more global view of democracy as a political practise that has been present at various times and in sometimes unfamiliar ways in the complex histories and rich cultural traditions of most of the people of the earth.

This article examines the openly adversarial neoconservative foundation under George Bush to the supposedly more ‘engaged’ diplomatic interaction under Barack Obama. What will be exposed is a fairly uninspired and non-innovative American policy that not only fails to consider Russian initiatives from Russia’s own national security perspectives, but aims to contain it within a continued Cold War box that not only sours opportunities for collaboration but guarantees the absence of partnership in areas of global security. This piece examines the consequences of imagining Russia only as nemesis.

This article explores how technology and our recent access to, and abundance of, informa-tion, are affecting democracy, and the role of public relations professionals in a post massmedia society. The article reviews pros and cons of new technology, discusses how publicrelations can improve, democracy using dialogue, communitarianism, and Long Now think-ing, and discusses how to actually, use social media dialogically. The article argues that aspublic relations revives its conceptualization of, relationship, communication professionalsalso benefit democracy and society as a whole

Across multiple societies, we see a shift from regimes of truth (ROT) to “regimes of
posttruth” (ROPT) characterized by proliferating “truth markets.” ROT corresponded
to disciplinary society, tighter functioning between media/political/education apparatuses, scientific discourses, and dominant truth-arbiters. ROPT corresponds to societies of control, where power exploits new “freedoms” to participate/produce/express (as well as consume/diffuse/evaluate). These developments further correspond to postpolitics/ postdemocracy, where issues, discourses, and agency for sociopolitical change remain constrained, despite the enabling of a new range of cultural and pseudopolitical participation around, among other things, truth. ROPT emerge out of postpolitical/postdemocratic strategies common to control societies where especially resource rich political actors attempt to use data-analytic knowledge to manage the field of appearance and participation, via attention and affect.

This article is a manifesto for anarchist geographies, which are understood as kaleidoscopic spatialities that allow for multiple, non-hierarchical, and protean connections between autonomous entities, wherein solidarities, bonds, and affinities are voluntarily assembled in opposition to and free from the presence of sovereign violence, predetermined norms, and assigned categories of belonging. In its rejection of such multivariate apparatuses of domination, this article is a proverbial call to nonviolent arms for those geographers and non-geographers alike who seek to put an end to the seemingly endless series of tragedies, misfortunes, and catastrophes that characterize the miasma and malevolence of the current neoliberal moment. But this is not simply a demand for the end of neoliberalism and its replacement with a more moderate and humane version of capitalism, nor does it merely insist upon a more egalitarian version of the state. It is instead the resurrection of a prosecution within geography that dates back to the discipline’s earliest days: anarchism!

This series of works presents drafts from the economics section in the critique of capital. This is to become a published work. The goal of the authorship is a thorough, citizen's critique of capitalism from the layman's perspective. In the section of economics we grapple with economic theory, principles, history and practice. New insights and perspectives are given as concern how the capitalist economy has both traditionally and presently worked, and how economics should, ideally, work in general. Our main inquiry: to demystify mainstream political economy doctrines and conclude concerning capitalism's ability to meet the "common good" or "general welfare" satisfactorily.

A Note from the author:  We are looking to produce a more refined, accurate and thought provoking work. Therefore, your comments, objections, suggestions, challenges and other academic, grammatical, editorial and professional advice, disputes, concerns or directions are most warmly welcomed. Feel free to message or e-mail the author with your "two cents," we encourage it.

"In cities around the world, individuals and groups are reclaiming and creating urban sites, temporary spaces and informal gathering places. These ‘insurgent public spaces’ challenge conventional views of how public spaces are defined and used, and how they can transform the city environment. No longer confined to traditional public areas like neighbourhood parks and public plazas, these guerrilla spaces express the alternative social and spatial relationships in our changing cities.

With nearly twenty illustrated case studies, this volume shows how instances of insurgent public space occur across the world. Examples range from community gardening in Seattle and Los Angeles, street dancing in Beijing, to the transformation of parking spaces into temporary parks in San Francisco.

Drawing on the experiences and knowledge of individuals extensively engaged in the actual implementation of these spaces, Insurgent Public Space is a unique cross-disciplinary approach to the study of public space use, and how it is utilized in the contemporary, urban world. Appealing to professionals and students in both urban studies and more social courses, Hou has brought together valuable commentaries on an area of urbanism which has, up until now, been largely ignored.

Winner of 2012 Great Places Award -- http://www.edra.org/content/2012-place-book-winner"